Talk:Right-wing politics

Cleaned up US Political Party List

I cleaned up the list of right-wing political parties for the USA. It may be true that the groups I deleted might be "right-wing", but NONE OF THEM AT ALL were actual political parties. Either they are merely a faction within a political party (Log-Cabin Republicanc) or they are not political parties at all (all the rest). They may be politial PRESSURE GROUPS, but they are not political parties. They do not field candidates for office, and in the USA, THAT is what primarily distinguishes a political party from any other organization that happens to have a political slant. Dogface 15:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed split

This article has already grown in size considerabely, and I was thinking that it might be a good idea to take the "Political groups on the Right" section and make it into a separate (list-)article. - Mihnea Tudoreanu

Concur, easy piece to factor out. Jmabel 17:38, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

War support

The war has been, and still is, generally supported by Americans [1]. I agree that support has declined, but it is not a one sided issue. If it were, we'd probably have Howard Dean or someone even farther left as the democratic candidate, not Kerry. Sam [Spade] 19:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this page is a complete mess, because it's trying to deal with an extremely vague and complex issue in a simplistic way. It isn't taking account of differences in political spectrum from country to country - what is 'right wing' in one country is 'left wing' in another. It also isn't taking into account that people and organisations hold a variety of views and defy easy categorisation. Where do you place an organisation that advocates big spending on third world aid but a ban on abortion? Why the article chooses to focus on the war on terror as a defining issue is completely beyond me. If, as the author claims, there is widespread support for the war on terror, then it isn't a left/right separating issue. How about picking something more traditional like taxation or deregulation? Or social policy? Any why, why, why is the Natural Law Party considered a right wing organisation, but only in Taiwan?

As for the breezy passage that says that right-wingers see it as their duty to free foreigners from regimes that violate human rights - where was the author of that during the years the US was supporting dictatorships across the world? DJ Clayworth 20:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns generally, but would explain most of what your complaining about as based in an excessive focus on current events. Sometimes it is easier to focus on the news of the day (in your local newspaper) than the larger, meta-picture. IMO the large, meta-picture is that the left-right axis is a flase dicotomy, providing more confusion that it releives. Unfortunately, we are in the business of cataloging information, not scripting the way people think and speak, so there is clearly a need for an article on "right wing", as useless a the concept is IMO. In conclusion, be bold! Sam [Spade] 21:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

War on terror

Sam Spade today changed "George W. Bush's War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom have been generally supported by Americans on the right..." back to "George W. Bush's War on Terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom have been generally supported by Americans...", citing [2]. The cited article shows Americans almost evenly divided on the matter. That hardly substantiates the change; if anything, it refutes it. I don't want an edit war here, and the clobbered phrase "...on the right..." was mine, so I'm probably not the one to change this back, but I hope someone else will follow through on this. -- Jmabel 00:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

55% in favor, 38% opposed is "evenly divided"? I'm sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. Maybe it needs worded differently, but the suggestion the only americans on the right support it, or that americans are evenly divided is simply wrong. Sam [Spade] 03:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at the recent history of surveys on this subject. [3].

Sam [Spade] 05:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me the broad concept of the war on terror is supported more generally than the war on Iraq. Perhaps that could be indicated in some way. "George W. Bush's War on Terrorism has been generally supported by the American people. But public opinion has been less unified when it comes to the War on Iraq" or something to that effect. Just a suggestion. -- Spleeman 06:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think Spleeman is on the right track here. Generally supported hides a lot of ambivalence. However, less unified could be cashed out a bit. V V 10:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even on Sam's particular chosen survey (which is one of the most favorable to Bush that I've seen)

55-38 in June on military action having been the right decision (the numbers Sam quotes)
51-42 (only half as much of a gap) in April/May on the same question.
57-39 in June on whether things are going well
51-46 the opposite direction in April/May on the same question
48-46 choosing Bush over Kerry in June
50-45 the opposite direction in April/May on the same question

In short, Bush took an upswing right after the formation of the new government in Iraq. Also, he seems (according to the same article) to have gotten a boost from the Reagan funeral. Clearly these are short-term swings. An encyclopedia should not need to change on the basis of numbers that are obviously fluctuating month-to-month. The statement about "Americans generally" is far afield of the ostensible topic of this article, liable to change month-to-month, etc. A similar statement about the American right is one that has clearly sustained its truth over some time now and is strongly related to the topic of the article. -- Jmabel 17:16, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that when it comes to support for the war on terror, we should focus specifically on conservatives rather than broader categories like "Americans" or "the public", since this article is about right-wing groups. I also think a distinction should be made between "paleo-conservatives", such as Pat Buchanan and even Robert Novak, who were against the war on Iraq, and neo-conservatives, who are already mentioned. The implication that everyone on the right is pro-war is false and misleading. Finally, does anyone else have an issue with the phrase, "Israeli war against Palestinian terrorism"? It seems rather POV to me. -- Spleeman 18:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I certainly have an issue with it, but again, I'm duking out a bunch of this stuff with MathKnight at [left-wing politics]] and I don't want to spill too much of that NPOV debate over to other pages. -- Jmabel 20:19, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Here are my proposed changes, for now (this section needs a lot of work IMO):

In today's political world, foreign policy differences have become at least as important as economics in defining the Left-Right dichotomy. Examples include the U.S.-led "War on Terror" and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. While right-wing movements, such as the American neoconservatives, are generally hawkish and support military operations against states said to be "terror-sponsoring", emphasizing the need to oppose Islamist terrorism (by which they mean Al-Qaida, Hamas and even Arab dictatorships), left wing movements in the United States tend to be dovish and oppose preemptive military action, which they see as violation of human rights and international law (see also: Left wing and the anti-war movement).

The broad concept of George W. Bush's "War on Terror" has been generally supported by the American people, while the debate over "Operation Iraqi Freedom" been more contentious [4]. Both campaigns have enjoyed wide support among Americans on the right.

Notes/Remaining issues:

Another possibility I thought of for the last sentence was: "Many on the right view the latter as an integral part of the former, and both campaigns have enjoyed their wide support".
The info in the second sentence probably needs to tie into the rest of the paragraph better.
The third sentence still seems long and unwieldy.
"The need" seems POV -- something along the lines of "perceived need" might be better.
The terms "hawkish" and "dovish" strike me as rather unsophisticated (and unnecessary).
Movements and individuals on the left oppose preemptive war for a variety of reasons, not just the two given.
Oh, and was there a reason "neoconservatives" is in bold?

Feel free to ruthlessly tear apart this draft! -- Spleeman 03:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Far-right

This article needs to discuss more coherenatly the "Far-right", and also needs more international information. Its very Americentric. Sam [Spade] 22:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

moved from article

A common justification to the military operations is the beliefe that that it is not enough to enhance security checks on the borders, and that the only way to reduce terrorist threats are to hit the terrorists in their own territory. Since many terrorists group recieve funding, weapons, trainings and shelter in foreign countries (mainly in the Middle East and northern Africa) it is essential to damage their logistic infrastructure and attack them in their "save haven". The military campaign - which include a military ground assult or air bombing over a foreign country - is accompanied by legal measures in order to stop terror's funding from civilians in friendly states.

This is actually a good paragraph, but I think its not needed in this article. How about you merge it into "war on terror", or some such? Sam [Spade] 16:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Needing citations

Mihnea, I agree with the substance of your recent edits, but for some citations would really be in order. Otherwise, we are basically smuggling POV into the article. There are three places that concern me in this respect; italics in the following are mine, highlighting this issue:

"some thinkers, both of the left and the right, see this as a worrying tendency"
"Critics argue that it is inappropriate to equate every dictator in the world with Hitler..."
"Many groups on the left agree with the ideal of spreading democracy and freedom, but disagree with the methods employed by the right."

Jmabel 23:04, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies for stepping into the midst of the War on Terror fight, but the phrasing seemed awkward so I thought I'd give it a shot.Drernie 21:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edited the entrance for Finland

There was a statement in the part of the text dealing with Finland that said:

 "Finland doesn't have any right-wing parties. Some right-wing minorities can be found in the National   Coalition Party"

I altered this part of the text to be more realistic. Of course Finland has many right-wing parties and groups as does any other multiparty democracy. Anyone can easily find the facts from the Eduskunta website or check websites of the parties in order to see their idealistic statements and their popularity procentages. (unsigned)

There has been a bunch of recent back-and-forth in the section about Finland. Can I suggest that, as for other countries, you can just do a list of parties here? Then start a separate article Right-wing politics in Finland where you can go into tons of detail. The start of the Finland section here would then have a notice See main article Right-wing politics in Finland. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:27, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Libertarians on the right?

Someone recently added the United States Libertarian Party to the list of parties. My understanding is that there are both right and left libertarians; some of the latter seem to me to be very much on the left in most respects, I've worked with them on anti-war stuff. Some of them even believe in a sort of cooperativism that isn't far from anarchist. I'm not going to revert this on my own -- the bulk of small-l and capital-L U.S. libertarians are certainly on the right, and the party is dominated nationally by its right wing -- but here in the Pacific Northwest (and, I gather, in Alaska) the local party is not particularly on the right. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:08, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

"anti-war" stuff would not be a left/right category. Where they would classify themselves probably depends on whether they focus on economic or social issues. If the adopt Karl Marx's reasoning, "It's the economy stupid." (or was that somebody else?), then they would identify with the right, and be relatively comfortable with the limited government classical liberals who want to lower taxes and avoid foreign entanglements. The anarcho-capitalists that would be among them aren't that far from anarchists, although I'm not sure what you mean by cooperativism.--Silverback 06:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cooperative. No passive shareholders. And in their vision for this, no limited liability.

Looks like someone deleted, someone else restored. I'm skipping this battle, but there are a lot of libertarians working on Wikipedia, what do they think of this. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:10, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Silverback's recent edits

Silverback made two recent additions that I really disagree with. Rather than an edit war, I'm hoping we can discuss. The added material is bolded in the following quotation:

Tradition, the means of preserving individual rights, free markets and constitutional constraints on government (also called "classical liberals" in the United States), or in Europe the means of preserving wealth and power in the hands that have traditionally held them, social stability, and national solidarity and ambition are among the concerns typically associated with the right wing of the political spectrum. Those on the right are sometimes called "reactionary" by their opponents, a term that first arose to refer to those whose politics was formed in reaction against the French Revolution. In the United States, reactionary refers to those who oppose the centralized command and control proposals of the left, so the meaning is anti-authoritarian, nearly the opposite of its original French monarchist/authoritarian meaning.

The term "classical liberal" is almost unknown in American political discourse, outside of very limited academic circles and certain very narrow parts of the political right (mostly either libertarians or close associates of Jack Kemp), so I think that is an obfuscation rather than a clarification here.

I hope you don't mind if I interleave my responses. I think you are unfamiliar with the US right, classical liberal was almost univerally used in the old right of the 50s thru 80s, including Goldwater republicans, John Bircher's and the Young American's for Freedom (which eventually underwent a libertarian/traditionalist split, both sides opposed the draft and would identify as classical liberals). Goldwater, Kemp, Patrick Buchanan, William F. Buckley and Newt Gingrich would happily identify as classical liberals and consider that equivilent to conservatives in the U.S.A. The more modern "social conservative" movement in the U.S.A is not in the intellectual leadership of the right, which still turns to the austrian and chicago schools of economics, Bastiat and von Hayek, etc. There have not been many libertarians in U.S. political positions of power, Ron Paul, currently in the House of Representatives is one, but he runs as a "conservative" republican, and in the past Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon who co-sponsored the bill to end the draft in 1968 with Senator Barry Goldwater. Other prominent persons rumored to be libertarians are Milton Friedman, Nathaniel Greenspan, and George Soros. --Silverback 08:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goldwater, Birchers, YAF, Kemp, Buckley, etc. Yes, this is exactly the portion (I'm inclined to say sliver) of the right who would use this term this way. I gave a shorter list (below, you've interspersed), but we are talking about the same people: I can't see why you are charging me with ignorance. It's fine to say that such a group exists, but wrong to equate it with the entire right. And then you yourself shift to "libertarian", which is certainly not interchangeable with "right-wing" (although Ron Paul is certainly a right libertarian). Soros, in particular, makes nearly all of his political alliances left of center. And many on the right (especially the religious right) despise libertarianism. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Also, I haven't seen any indication that conservatives as a group weigh in on one side or the other of "individual rights" in general. Property rights, sure, but certainly not as a group the biggest advocates of (for example) a woman's right to abortion or the right of African Americans to vote or even to live wherever they choose (it sure isn't American liberals maintaining the color line in lily white suburbs). Similarly, "constitutional constraints on government" isn't a left-right issue, it's a matter of which constraints. I haven't seen the right-wing out in front of the battle against the USA PATRIOT Act (although to give credit where it's due, some of them have been in the fray).

Conservatives were at the forefront of ending the draft, questioning the Patriot act, opposition to gun control, opposition to the regulation supplements, investigating and curbing the abuses of the Internal Revenue Service, speeding drug approvals by the F.D.A and limiting its power to restrict speech, investigating the Waco and Ruby Ridge federal abuses, and the moves to lower taxes.--Silverback 08:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Opposition to gun control, certainly. IRS abuses: generally true, although in many cases I would have to suspect this was not so much a matter of concern with abuses as finding any available stick with which to beat the IRS. Regulation of supplements (I assume you mean food supplements), certainly (although arguably part and parcel for many of them with opposition to thorough inspection of meat and agricultural products as well. Be that as it may, the supplements thing is one of the few times I ever found myself on the same side of an issue as Orrin Hatch.) Ending the draft? Yes, there were conservatives (and especially libertarians) involved in that fight, but that was very much a "both ends against the middle" struggle: it's not like the U.S. left loved the draft, viz. the anti-Vietnam-War movement. Patriot Act? Again, a "both ends against the middle" struggle. "Speeding drug approvals by the F.D.A." is a double-edged sword: the right to use undertested drugs. Yes, I suppose the right was mostly behind that, and welcome to it. Waco and Ruby Ridge: well, Ruby Ridge resonated more with the right because the victims were far-right, just like (for the same reason) the firebombing of the MOVE headquarters in Philadelphia resonated more with the left. I don't see that as a greater commitment to rights by one or the other. Waco is again "both ends against the middle" and made for unlikely bedfellows on both sides, it was not a left-right issue. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

"...centralized command and control proposals of the left" is sheer political rhetoric, unless you are so far right that you consider George W. Bush to be on the left.

Bush is to the left on issues like federal involvement in education, the medicare prescription plan (which I support), abortion and the war on drugs. In terms of his administration's accomplishments he is to the left of every Republican president this century, although I think personally he is to the right of his father and Nixon, who came from the left wing of the party.--Silverback 08:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So are you saying that we only count principled right-wingers (or maybe only principled secular right-wingers) as part of the right? I'm sorry, just like we on the left are stuck with our SOBs, you are stuck with yours. G.W. Bush is (with the possible exception of Reagan) the farthest right president at least since McKinley. A definition of the U.S. right that doesn't encompass G.W. Bush is sophistry. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like what you are describing characterizes a narrow piece of the right (libertarians, John McCain, Jack Kemp, maybe the late Barry Goldwater, doubtless others), but not the bulk of the American right, certainly not George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney. To suggest that this is what right-wing in the U.S. typically means is actively misleading. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is a strong libertarian strain within U.S. conservatives, although the social conservatives are not well educated on it. Dick Cheney is an interventionist in foreign policy, but there are rumors that he or some of his cronies in the neocon movement who came over from the Democratic party, favor legalization of drugs (I'm not sure which, so I am unwilling to categorize them). Within fundamentalist christians, you would be surprised at how anti-government they can be, refusing to display American flags (you cannot serve two masters), opposing government involvement and licensing of marriage, and government restrictions on non-profits, etc. Since wikipedia is visible to the European and world community, it is important not to let the American right be charactertured (sp?) by leftist rhetoric, especially since the terms right and conservative have such different, almost opposite, meanings here than in the rest of the world.--Silverback 08:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But it's also important to convey the breadth of the American right, not to single out the most principled strain and act like that stood for the entire right. It's as if one presented the American left strictly in terms of Victor Navasky, Michael Albert, and Howard Zinn. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

My recent edits

I cleaned up the section in question, and while I think it needs more work, describing the wide divide between paleoconservatives, neoconservatives], and libertarians, I would like to think I left it better than I found it. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archives